On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:07:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it > > > is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you > > > can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like). > > > > If so, then the GPL is, too--the copyright holder "doesn't like" you > > distributing binaries without source. Stop making ludicrous comparisons. > > No, that's entirely different. The MS EULA allows them to crush > anything that they don't like. The GPL does no such thing.
Nor does "don't enforce patents against this software", so I'm not sure what you're arguing here. > > > Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright > > > holder. > > > > ... commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, > > against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work > > infringes a patent. > > > > Please not "or any licensee". This clause is not giving the licensee > > special treatment. > > Right, it's giving the copyright holder special treatment. That's my point. Thinko due to neighboring words; s/licensee/licensor/. (I suppose I should just use "copyright holder" and "user".) It's not giving the copyright holder special treatment at all; it very explicitly and deliberately treats the copyright holder and users equally. -- Glenn Maynard